JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

Reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2020-21 With reference to the above With reference to the above subject and under the instructions subject and under the instructions of our above named client, we would like to submit as under; of our above named client, we would like to submit as under; of our above named client, we would like

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

35,497/- under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and to reassess the income after granting the Assessee a reasonable

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

35,497/- under Section\n36(1)(viia) of the Act and to reassess the income after granting the\nAssessee a reasonable

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings in the case of the Assessee. In\nthe present case the return of income was filed by the Assessee for\nthe Assessment Year 2012-2013 was processed under Section\n143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed on the\nAssessee under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, it was\nirrelevant whether the income

AAKASH VALUE REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

reassessment framed under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016–17. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged both the validity of notice issued under section 148 and, on merits, the disallowance of deduction amounting to ₹1,79,37,500/- claimed under section 35

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1

MOHAMEDALI SHABANALI BADAMI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

35 challenging the validity of notice u/s 148 dated 19th April 2022. Your appellant respectfully submits that the learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the first ground which challenges the AO's jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 contrary to the mandate of the first proviso below section 149. Ground 2 - The notice u/s. 148 dated 19th April

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 153A of the Act. In respect of a non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made 5 HK Enterprises, Mumbai only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. No incriminating material found for which additions

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 153A of the Act. In respect of a non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made 5 HK Enterprises, Mumbai only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. No incriminating material found for which additions

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 153A of the Act. In respect of a non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made 5 HK Enterprises, Mumbai only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. No incriminating material found for which additions

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC - 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 153A of the Act. In respect of a non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made 5 HK Enterprises, Mumbai only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. No incriminating material found for which additions

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 153A of the Act. In respect of a non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made 5 HK Enterprises, Mumbai only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. No incriminating material found for which additions

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 153A of the Act. In respect of a non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made 5 HK Enterprises, Mumbai only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. No incriminating material found for which additions

H.K.ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 153A of the Act. In respect of a non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made 5 HK Enterprises, Mumbai only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. No incriminating material found for which additions

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 127(1) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. also admitted though there is no necessity at all to give an opportunity of hearing for the same to the assessee yet for the sake of even appreciation, the PCIT may also not pass a reasoned order, yet passing an assessment jurisdiction transfer order u/s 127(1

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO by relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT\nand Anr. Which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concluded that failure on\nthe part of the assesse is not restricted only to the return

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings in the case of the Assessee. In\nthe present case the return of income was filed by the Assessee for\nthe Assessment Year 2012-2013 was processed under Section\n143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed on the\nAssessee under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, it was\nirrelevant whether the income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment, no further enquiry or addition is permissible. 20. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012–13 to 2014–15 is invalid in law. Consequently, any additions made under section 68 or disallowances under section 37(1